dagblog - Comments for "Austin Scott’s effort to rein in domestic drones"

Yes, we probably should fear

EmmaZahn — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:58:04 +0000

Yes, we probably should fear drone use by homeowners' associations, neighborhood watch captains, Mayor Bloomberg and Jenny McCarthy much more than government entities who have other means of spying on us. For example:

News in the Science of "Looking"

Flash news: The U.S. government’s secret space program has decided to give NASA two new telescopes for orbital use, as big as, and even more powerful than, the Hubble Space Telescope. Designed for surveillance, the telescopes from the National Reconnaissance Office were no longer needed for spy missions and can now be sent with missions aimed outward, instead of inward, to study the heavens. They have 2.4-meter (7.9 feet) mirrors, just like the Hubble. They also have an additional feature that the civilian space telescopes lack: A maneuverable secondary mirror that makes it possible to obtain more focused images. These telescopes will have 100 times the field of view of the Hubble. The problem: NASA needs money to instrument, fly and operate these scopes. Sign the petition to fund the NRO telescopes.

I hope this doesn't increase the risk that Congress will kill the James Webb Space Telescope, though now an extensive re-design of that problem-plagued project can be undertaken without it being a calamity for humanity and science. One question that won't be answered: what does the secret space program now have to replace these now outdated telescopes?

When you are outside, look up... and smile for the cameras.

The EPA is one thing. But

artappraiser — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:39:02 +0000

In reply to Austin Scott’s effort to rein in domestic drones

The EPA is one thing. But there may be no greater threat to American privacy than a homeowners association with its own air force.

Excellent point, Mr. Galloway.

His example of EPA Cessna vs. imagined EPA drone was also spot on. I think "drone fear" is irrational and overwrought when it comes to an all-powerful government, as there it's not the tool they use to do something, but what they're trying to do, bad or good or inbetween. I.E., they're going to be spying on manure dumping by farms with or without drones, just as there is/was terrible "collateral damage" from warfare and blowback from warfare with or without drones (usually much more in the case of the latter.) Drones are smaller, not as easy to see as traditional aircraft/bombers and are piloted remotely--to which I say: big whoop dee do difference (not) when the operator is a government with a huge military with planes, ships, choppers, tanks and bombs of all varieties as well as inumerable domestic law enforcement agencies, spy agencies with all kinds of technology, and vast powers to use them all. (Not to mention members who include most forms of humanity along the spectrum from sterling honest and hale fellows and ladies all the way to the most dastardly criminal minds one could imagine.)

On the other hand, drones would make a real big difference for entities that never could afford (or weren't allowed) a military or even a police force before, and even more of a difference for those subject to those entities' "rules."